I do wonder why we spend so much time talking about another countries problem. I honestly don't think it is any of our direct business unless we are using it as an excuse to not visit. Why the USA and not all those other countries with high murder rates and high rates of firearms possession?

and it brings us back to why americans are armed to the teeth, partly because initially they struggled to afford a decent size permanent military, so they encouraged citizens to arm themselves, BYO weapons to any fight the nation may pick with indigenous people or foreigners... and they govt couldnt defend the citizens effectively outside of the cities, so it was defend yourself with your weapon of choice, but that was when the firearm of choice was a musket, a very inaccurate , slow to load weapon.. mass shootings from lone muskets were not an issue.

Wayno I don't see why you can't understand that it can't happen here simply because we have no constitutional rights and if politicians and government make laws those laws are legal with no possibility of appeal That is where the American constitution differs from most if not all countries constitutions; It ensures that there are some laws a government cannot make. Under the Australian constitution we have no "Rights" as understood by USA citizens. It wasn't the people of Australia decided a decade or so ago that these weapons should be confiscated, it was one coward of a politician who saw electoral advantage in doing so. I understand the US point of view even if I do not agree with it.

EDITI can see rereading that my post could be misconstruedI am referring to a fight to maintain rights in the above post. Not the possibility of a firearms massacre, that can ans will most likely happen again and again here but hopefully with a much lower incidence than in other countriesThe weapons are here, hidden for the most part but they are here

Over 15,00 people are murdered in the US each year. If America's armies were experiencing this level of attrition the media would be broadcasting body bags and funerals and all the usual suspects would be protesting in the streets.Kind of ironic.

Last edited by Avatar on Sat 24 Mar, 2018 4:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.

"Australia Hasn’t Had A Mass Shooting Since 1996.(Australia) ...had 13 mass shootings in the 18-year period from 1979 to 1996 but none in the succeeding 19 years..."

That's good enough for me.Get rid of them.There is no need for firearms in a modern and sophisticated society. Law enforcement, defence, farming and some private security ops excepted. Civilised people don't carry guns.I grew up in the country as a kid with a .22 and a 410 shotgun. They were handed-in decades ago.I don't need them, want them or miss them.Gun control and restriction works.John Howard"s 1996 reforms were a brave act, the only decision of his I have ever admired.

Avatar wrote:Over 15,00 people are murdered in the US each year. If America's armies were experiencing this level of attrition the media would be broadcasting body bags and funerals and all the usual suspects would be protesting in the streets. Kind of ironic.

This says something about their collective view.

highercountry wrote:That's good enough for me. Get rid of them. There is no need for firearms in a modern and sophisticated society. Law enforcement, defence, farming and some private security ops excepted. Civilised people don't carry guns.

I grew up in the country as a kid with a .22 and a 410 shotgun. They were handed-in decades ago. I don't need them, want them or miss them.

Gun control and restriction works. John Howard"s 1996 reforms were a brave act, the only decision of his I have ever admired.

Switzerland has a lot of guns but minimal gun crimehttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 30606.html"The country has about 2 million privately owned guns in a nation of 8.3 million people. In 2016, the country had 47 homicides with firearms. The country's overall murder rate is near zero."

Gun crimes depend on a number of factors. Proscribing gun ownerships is not one of them. Of course there should be background checks, some guns being procribed, locked cabinets with ammo stored elsewhere, and more, but banning guns outright would not work. There's too many entrenched interests. In any case, the responsible gun owners will not abuse the way that guns are used. Criminals will acquire black guns by several means.

the US permanent armed forces is under 1.3 million people with 800,000 reservesthat would only equate to 100 deaths a year in the armed forces....when people are murdered in poor areas it doesnt make the news as readily and that's where most of them are being murdered.

Lophophaps wrote:Switzerland has a lot of guns but minimal gun crimehttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 30606.html"The country has about 2 million privately owned guns in a nation of 8.3 million people. In 2016, the country had 47 homicides with firearms. The country's overall murder rate is near zero."

Maybe counter-intuitive to those who propose more transparency, but this protocol is clearly fundamental to a properly functioning democracy.

The Ancient Greeks realised corruption (bribery and intimidation) of the process was an issue and used secret ballots, so this goes a long way back. Modern democracies have not had secret ballots for very long. Tasmania has been noted as an early implementer of secret ballots in the modern era.

I'll play devils advocate here, former gunowner and hunter, gave up mostly as tired of shooting poor animals, not a moral epiphany regards guns per se.

I see laws as only part of the overall control of crime. The other two equal factors are resources and culture. When these are strong enough, people to a degree manage themselves with less laws. And there always needs to be balance, when any of the three really start to slide, adding to the third is a poor bandaid. For example previous generations here had little gun laws, they were far more easily accessed, I had legally unregistered guns in my closet or sitting unlocked in the truck, the army even used to auction old guns to the public and you only needed a drivers licence to purchase. My uncle as a kid used to ride his pushbike into town and pick up the families order of jelly from the grocery store( jelignite high explosive!) for blasting stumps on their few acres, right next door to town.

Where were the drive-bys, the terrorist attacks, the school shootings, the 'American level gun violence' that such availability should be paraelling? There was crime but there was no American level of crime- even when we could buy C4 level explosive more easily than most Americans today.

Also using the US as an example is too simplified. The 50 states of America operate with relative autonomy and have vastly differing laws. From almost free-gun use states like Texas and Utah to highly resctrictive states closer to our end of the spectrum( New york, Washington DC etc.) Not to mention NZ laws , a lot looser than Aus laws, sit around the middle ground of several American states laws for laxity. Good luck drawing direct parallels between gun violence and availability across that mix...

I am not a 'no-gun laws' guy and I'm not saying we had a better culture ( at the risk of a horde of economically disenfranchised millennials descending on me waving anti-patriachy placards) but I am saying there is more at work here than assuming X amount of laws= X level of behaviour.

I think the thing that frustrates me most about the entire debate is that both sides, or at least the main spokesmen, use fear as their main motivator. I'm sure you've all encountered someone start talking about a topic that is core to what you do for a living, and you know right away that they are only informed enough to be dangerous. My entire job centers around fear, and so when I see it used as a tool or selfish means, or falsely placated it drives me mental. This comes on the heels of the new decryption law that australia has passed, its the same thing, fear used to manipulate. Everyone has their "this takes us back to the stone age" thing. For me its the pushing of fear instead of information to the average person. But realistic TV news is both boring and will cause existential dread, so I get why no one likes it.